h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Two (because we already have a minus-one on board), this is good. You are making me think very hard, and picking me up on some sloppy language. You are a very demanding correspondent. Watch this space.

Monkey boy leaps into the classroom and steals the teachers chalks!.... Hows that for random!!!. Chaos? I think not. Sorry people, thats just little old me swinging in on my vine to add my pennys worth. It is my solom belief that very few of the above questions/answers have an answer/question to match with them. there is no right nor wrong only differing interpretations of the raw data we actually know (not much really) If the universe is expanding infinatly then our finite human minds will never be able to answer the questions that we set ourselves or explain the mysteries we observe. Maybe we should all be content with the fact that our universe is an amazing, beautiful, complex, chaotic? creation/mistake/coincidence and just count ourselves lucky that we were lucky enough to grow some arms and pull our way to the top of the gene pool!!!!

Well, the points you make are decent, if a bit rhetorical. The point is not to determine whether or not we can define an absolute; we can't , because all of our model-building systems are limited by our cognitive functions and sensory data. The point is to see how far we can extend our model and refine it so taht it gives us some meaningful insight into the workings of the reality which we find ourselves participating in. If you are arguing that an emerging cosmology has no social significance whatsoever, I must disagree; historically, cosmologies shape and define religions and politics and have the greatest significant impact imaginable on human societal life.

It seems you are saying 'so what'. you're entitled to that; but you'll have to offer better reasoning for dismissing it if you are expecting an agreement from me. I prefer this kind of exercise over discussion of sports events; I guess that's my prerogative

OK you have a very fine point. The "I dont care" attitude that I seem to portray isn't particularly inspiring I feal no need to search out the mysteries of the universe. I can see that the "theories" being researched and moneys being spent are in some way increasing the collective intelligence of the human race. However my question is not why do people bother? rather why don't we spend as much time and money solving non theroretical problems and conundrems of actual life on earth??

Not a bad question; you'll find a link from my page to an article on the SETI project where I say something very similar. I think it's atrocious how much time and money gets poured into that program. Even NASA seems sort of like a waste, honestly.

But to be fair, I think to support this kind of argument you really need to offer some kind of evidence that the money that does get spent on scientific research would otherwise be going to starving, needy people. My guess is it would probably go to defense research first, being that the Western World doesn't much give a flying f**k about the have-nots of the planet.

But overall I actually think that a new cosmology would have significant pull in helping to solve some social issues. For example, most major religions espouse some form of the 'golden rule' without offering the listener any real reason to follow it. But perhaps if a cosmology were to emerge where people were given to realize that in a superdeterministic universe with consciousness imminent at all points, everything really is ONE in a very real way. What you do to the other you do to yourself. Suddenly people have a selfish reason to be nice and empathize a bit. The physics of karma, sort of. This is one example of what I imagine a new world could be like. So I think it is worthwhile for me to spend time here discussing it. I still give food to the food banks when I can Sometimes I have to go take food from them too, heh. I think if I were to turn your question around I might phrase it thus; "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the human race spent more time and money pursuing with open minds projects intended to advance our understanding of the world, rather than throwing it into military expenditures in an attempt to 'solve' our little tribal squabbles and military conundrums?"

Two, I’m starting late so I may not be able to give your reply as much time as it deserves. But here goes.

First, relative galactic velocities. I think the point I am making is actually too obvious. Because the relative motions of the galaxies are small compared to the speed of light, it would appear that NOT all frames of reference are to be equally preferred. I would say that any frame of reference based on motion with a large velocity relative to our galaxy, and hence a large velocity relative to most of the objects in the universe, is clearly not a natural frame of reference. If we were surrounded by objects travelling at high velocities in all directions, fair enough, but it seems that there is a preferred frame because the velocities are found to exist within a small range. I am just suggesting that since there is a preferred frame, that this should be considered as an absolute frame. Why else would there be a preferred frame? For me, it is preferred because it is absolute.

No reality to the future or to the past. This is very subtle of course. The only way I can present how I feel is in negative terms. When I say there is no reality to the future I mean that I do NOT believe that future events are mapped out such that we merely experience the unfolding of our lives to a pre-ordained pattern - which is how the spacetime model suggested by relativity can easily be interpreted. When I say there is no reality to the past I mean that there is no past to which we can ever return. However ingenious our inventions may become, there can be no going back in time because there is nothing to go back to. In a way, I deny the existence of time altogether. Time is a construct of our consciousness to deal with a reality which is simply change.

To say that there is only one universe was rather sloppy. What I was trying to convey was that I believe there is only universe that we can ever know. There is only one universe that it is meaningful to discuss. I know there is a lot of current discussion about multiverses, and bubble universes, bubbling out of bubbles. This is fun, but I just don’t think its particularly meaningful. There is enough mystery in this universe to keep me going for now.

I very much like your point that information has to be read out somewhere in order to be such. It is very difficult to describe in rational terms, but this is the ‘point’ of it all. The universe, in some unfathomably beautiful, recursve, mystical way, is ever striving to find ways to ‘print’ its information out. The human mind is one such instrument.

By a ‘material sense’ I was referring to the image of physicality which most people (although not you perhaps) impose upon reality - the conscious construct of solidity. I was for many years confused by those cartoon images of spaceships contracting in the direction of motion, so you were presented with a picture of a short stub of a spacecraft. It is easy to get the impression that physical changes occur at relativistic speeds, which is, of course, not the case at all. Indeed, the very opposite is true. The remarkable thing is that nothing changes at all. It's all about relative appearance - only the communication of information is effected.

Is linear process a subset of universal being or is the universal being a subset of linear process? A profound question, and I think you are very perceptive in seeing our answers to this as where we disagree. I do tend towards the latter, and would very much like to hear your reasons for taking the opposite view.

I know your Zen saying well. I think it is very important that one’s metaphysical dealings with reality complement one’s everyday dealings. I like to think I have a reasonable balance - with two young boys on my hands it's not too hard. Very earthing when the intellectual current is running too high.

Your response to Monkey-Boy was very appropriate. It is never a question of one OR the other. We are gifted with a mind that is able to open itself to wonder before the incredible reality of existence. It is part of our most fundamental human nature to explore and to enquire into the Big Questions. For me, that enquiry enhances my experience of the everyday wonders of life. And, of course, it goes hand in hand with our attempts (albeit rather futile at the moment) to make the world a better place to live in. The hope is that eventually a more coherent world view will emerge which will actually further those attempts at making the world a better place.

Ok, you may be assuming that I am aware of something that I am not; I still don't quite really grasp the 'obvious' point that the fact that galaxies tend to travel at 600 kph somehow infers that certain relative models are more meaningful than other relative models. But even were I to accept your argument as a given; I might point out that you seem to be also inferring a preferred 'scale'. That is, the speed of the bodies making up the galaxy is not considered, nor is the speed of the particle motion making up those bodies, nor the rate of travel of the superclusters of which those galaxies are a part. How do you determine that the relative motion of matter on an arbitrary scale determines a universal absolute? Also, while we are not in any sense 'surrounded by objects moving in all directions at high velocities' I am pretty sure that Einstein had worked out that ANY point in the system could be considered 'the center' because of the curvature of space time. Also isn't it a tenet of the currently in vogue cosmology that space-time is 'expanding' at about the speed of light? Whatever the case, I have to disagree with you that even a 'preferred frame' (preferred by us I suppose) can in any sense meaningfully be determined absolute. My point is semantic maybe; but I think that any critical rationalist must contend that there are absolutely no absolutes (and if we want to get taoist, that would include this statement) that are knowable to the human mind because of our model building methodologies.

Regarding time, and whether it is there or not; I think I would halfway agree with you on the first point. But I think you are probably missing some of the implications here (which by the way I barely grasp myself, and only in moments of rare lucidity). My understanding is that the system itself is a superstructure of possibilities. Ie, ALL potential outcomes are preserved in the macroscale framework; by process of observational interaction, certain outcomes are actualized in an informational exchange; the other outcomes remain as collapsed mathematical potentials. Rather like a cd-rom game, where you play and unlock/experience a fraction of the potential information encoded on the disc itself. The 'past' and the 'future' are collapsed; there is in that sense only the imminent process. That doesn't mean that the potential information ('past' and 'present') isn't there. This is why I think back to fractals; it seems a worthwhile comparison (consider this a model) because fractals (fractured dimensions!) are mathematical structures which are comprised of 'infinitely' complex variants within a 'finite' boundary. Only by making iterative calculations of a section of the fractal (chosen by defining scale and relative viewpoint) can the lattices and whorls of structure be imminantized for observation. That doesn't mean that the other structures of the fractal 'don't exist'. It just means that no relative observation has imminantized them, so they remain 'collapsed' (perhaps part of the implicate order). So in a way when I refer to a superdeterministic universe I refer to it in the way I would to the cd-rom disc or to the simple equation x=x^2+c. Certainly you are correct that process is necessary to experience specific aspects of the whole. I am not sure if I can agree that we can determine that 'time doesn't exist' or that 'there is nothing to go back to' and that 'our technology will never allow us to go back'. Time does exist, as space-time, and I accept this model for the purposes of these discussions however incomplete it may later be shown to be; we 'need' time in this model to understand relativistic time dilation. As for back and forth in time hrmm; not prepared to discuss time travel right now, but I think saying 'nothing to go back to' implies that the processes you say are the foundation of everything somehow are spontaneous ex-nihilo occurences. As for the crack about what we may or may not accomplish technologically, history is filled with people who wish they hadn't made such assertions But I won't argue...

As far as your discussion of our universe being the only meaningful one; I agree and disagree. I think a 'complete' understanding of this one universe will eventually include understanding its 'relative' properties compared to what else might be out there (or in here). Again, I can't help but think that nature seems to be a process of infinite variety.

Regarding information and the universe's 'readout' Yes, and this is what I think relativity actually implies; that the universe extends itself through consciousness to determine a context from which its comparitive values are 'bootstrapped'. Nothing magical about this if you accept a superdeterministic view. My own far out view of this is that consciousness as we know it is actually imminent in all points of the system, and it is only a characteristic of how that system happens to be organized that creates nodes of 'sentience' as we understand it. A rock is conscious, potentially, if you pound it to silicon, organize it into Turing feedback circuitry, feed it electric current, and allow it some mechanism to adapt itself further. Or, take some organic chemistry, apply a solar wind, wait a few billion years; you get the idea. Sentience is an epiphenomenon of organized consciousness. The unfolding process of organizing matter and energy into nodes capable of observing and processing information is what the metascheme is all about. YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE KNOWING ITSELF. This is what I call 'The Real' or 'God'. There is in a sense a symbiosis here (if I can use an arbitrary dualistic model) of the universe organizing itself to observe itself so that it can organize itself and so forth; very reminiscent of the 'strange loop' algorithms Turing predicted would be used to create artificial intelligence. This is also, I think, the Yin and Yang of the Tao.

With regards to our sidebar about 'material'; Hrm; I donno. Relativity tells us 'energy' is 'matter', but I haven't heard a satisfactory definition of matter. Energy is presumed to be 'the potential for doing work' but that could mean almost anything. I get the feeling that none of us have any sense of what we are talking about when we use these terms; they are symbols of something we don't quite grasp used to create functional models on a scale we find useful; but when you peer closely at the symbol it loses its definition. I'm not saying the models are useless or inaccurate; just that there is a whole aspect of reality we ignore when we don't recognize that they are symbols of something else.

I think the zen saying can be extended further actually. My guess is that it refers to relative frameworks; there is a sense in which rivers are NOT rivers at all, but having mastered that notion doesn't invalidate the sense in which they are; rather, the two frameworks are complementary. The principle of complementarity is very important in eastern thought, (yin and yang again) and I expect it applies to our discussion (if i may be so bold) in that it demonstrates how both of our viewpoints have some validity, depending on relative reference to scale and perspective. Reality IS process; it is also superdetermined. It is all, ah, relative.

Your last paragraph is basically the thesis of my book (which is suffering but also benefitting from these discussions). I think we are ready for an enlarged cosmology. I think it will determine whether we live or die.

Ok, you may be assuming that I am aware of something that I am not; I still don't quite really grasp the 'obvious' point that the fact that galaxies tend to travel at 600 kph somehow infers that certain relative models are more meaningful than other relative models. But even were I to accept your argument as a given; I might point out that you seem to be also inferring a preferred 'scale'. That is, the speed of the bodies making up the galaxy is not considered, nor is the speed of the particle motion making up those bodies, nor the rate of travel of the superclusters of which those galaxies are a part. How do you determine that the relative motion of matter on an arbitrary scale determines a universal absolute? Also, while we are not in any sense 'surrounded by objects moving in all directions at high velocities' I am pretty sure that Einstein had worked out that ANY point in the system could be considered 'the center' because of the curvature of space time. Also isn't it a tenet of the currently in vogue cosmology that space-time is 'expanding' at about the speed of light? Whatever the case, I have to disagree with you that even a 'preferred frame' (preferred by us I suppose) can in any sense meaningfully be determined absolute. My point is semantic maybe; but I think that any critical rationalist must contend that there are absolutely no absolutes (and if we want to get taoist, that would include this statement) that are knowable to the human mind because of our model building methodologies.

Regarding time, and whether it is there or not; I think I would halfway agree with you on the first point. But I think you are probably missing some of the implications here (which by the way I barely grasp myself, and only in moments of rare lucidity). My understanding is that the system itself is a superstructure of possibilities. Ie, ALL potential outcomes are preserved in the macroscale framework; by process of observational interaction, certain outcomes are actualized in an informational exchange; the other outcomes remain as collapsed mathematical potentials. Rather like a cd-rom game, where you play and unlock/experience a fraction of the potential information encoded on the disc itself. The 'past' and the 'future' are collapsed; there is in that sense only the imminent process. That doesn't mean that the potential information ('past' and 'present') isn't there. This is why I think back to fractals; it seems a worthwhile comparison (consider this a model) because fractals (fractured dimensions!) are mathematical structures which are comprised of 'infinitely' complex variants within a 'finite' boundary. Only by making iterative calculations of a section of the fractal (chosen by defining scale and relative viewpoint) can the lattices and whorls of structure be imminantized for observation. That doesn't mean that the other structures of the fractal 'don't exist'. It just means that no relative observation has imminantized them, so they remain 'collapsed' (perhaps part of the implicate order). So in a way when I refer to a superdeterministic universe I refer to it in the way I would to the cd-rom disc or to the simple equation x=x^2+c. Certainly you are correct that process is necessary to experience specific aspects of the whole. I am not sure if I can agree that we can determine that 'time doesn't exist' or that 'there is nothing to go back to' and that 'our technology will never allow us to go back'. Time does exist, as space-time, and I accept this model for the purposes of these discussions however incomplete it may later be shown to be; we 'need' time in this model to understand relativistic time dilation. As for back and forth in time hrmm; not prepared to discuss time travel right now, but I think saying 'nothing to go back to' implies that the processes you say are the foundation of everything somehow are spontaneous ex-nihilo occurences. As for the crack about what we may or may not accomplish technologically, history is filled with people who wish they hadn't made such assertions But I won't argue...

As far as your discussion of our universe being the only meaningful one; I agree and disagree. I think a 'complete' understanding of this one universe will eventually include understanding its 'relative' properties compared to what else might be out there (or in here). Again, I can't help but think that nature seems to be a process of infinite variety.

Regarding information and the universe's 'readout' Yes, and this is what I think relativity actually implies; that the universe extends itself through consciousness to determine a context from which its comparitive values are 'bootstrapped'. Nothing magical about this if you accept a superdeterministic view. My own far out view of this is that consciousness as we know it is actually imminent in all points of the system, and it is only a characteristic of how that system happens to be organized that creates nodes of 'sentience' as we understand it. A rock is conscious, potentially, if you pound it to silicon, organize it into Turing feedback circuitry, feed it electric current, and allow it some mechanism to adapt itself further. Or, take some organic chemistry, apply a solar wind, wait a few billion years; you get the idea. Sentience is an epiphenomenon of organized consciousness. The unfolding process of organizing matter and energy into nodes capable of observing and processing information is what the metascheme is all about. YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE KNOWING ITSELF. This is what I call 'The Real' or 'God'. There is in a sense a symbiosis here (if I can use an arbitrary dualistic model) of the universe organizing itself to observe itself so that it can organize itself and so forth; very reminiscent of the 'strange loop' algorithms Turing predicted would be used to create artificial intelligence. This is also, I think, the Yin and Yang of the Tao.

With regards to our sidebar about 'material'; Hrm; I donno. Relativity tells us 'energy' is 'matter', but I haven't heard a satisfactory definition of matter. Energy is presumed to be 'the potential for doing work' but that could mean almost anything. I get the feeling that none of us have any sense of what we are talking about when we use these terms; they are symbols of something we don't quite grasp used to create functional models on a scale we find useful; but when you peer closely at the symbol it loses its definition. I'm not saying the models are useless or inaccurate; just that there is a whole aspect of reality we ignore when we don't recognize that they are symbols of something else.

I think the zen saying can be extended further actually. My guess is that it refers to relative frameworks; there is a sense in which rivers are NOT rivers at all, but having mastered that notion doesn't invalidate the sense in which they are; rather, the two frameworks are complementary. The principle of complementarity is very important in eastern thought, (yin and yang again) and I expect it applies to our discussion (if i may be so bold) in that it demonstrates how both of our viewpoints have some validity, depending on relative reference to scale and perspective. Reality IS process; it is also superdetermined. It is all, ah, relative.

Your last paragraph is basically the thesis of my book (which is suffering but also benefitting from these discussions). I think we are ready for an enlarged cosmology. I think it will determine whether we live or die.

Nice one. TG. I actually agree'd with your reply to me. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the human race spent more time and money pursuing with open minds projects intended to advance our understanding of the world, rather than throwing it into military expenditures in an attempt to 'solve' our little tribal squabbles and military conundrums?" The problem with the world today is that without actually knowing it most of us are striving towards the same goals. (peace and harmony for us all.) Most of us want to live in a world where everyone gets on with each other and there is no hunger, starvation, war, grief etc. However there are always going to be the Alfa male's amongst us "this basically all stems from the fact that we are all domesticated primates" Most of the other non alfa domesticated primates are quite happy to get on with life having fun and enjoying themselves. Are we really that far from the apes we believe to be our predesesors??

Well, I feel that you are in a way pointing out the obvious, or at least preaching to the converted . Of course we're primates; why do you think Beeblebrox kept calling Arthur Dent 'monkey man'?

The alpha male myth is very much at the heart of our difficulty scrambling away from our ancestral heritage; our political leaders are alpha males, our warriors and generals are alpha males, our gods are alpha males, etc etc. I read somewhere that the single most significant statistical factor in determining whether war will break out in a given region has to do with what percentage of the population is represented by bored young men. I'm not sure what we as a species can do to achieve enlightened self interest when half of us are high on hormonal aggression drugs and the other half are high on hormonal manic depression drugs. Maybe we need hormone supressants in the drinking water.

Monkey boy is (I had hoped you would have guessed this by now) a less than subtle copy of Beeblebrox's name for Arthur. Bored young men eh?? Well I guess thats why most of the 1st world countries haven't got too envolved in any huge wars in the last 10 yrs or so. (except for other peoples ie. Gulf. Bosnia, Chechnia, the list goes on and on) This maybe could be explained by the invention of the playstation and other such mind numbing gadgets. Sony have probably stopped wars without even realising it!! sweet!


Quick tangent...
What are your thoughts on de/criminalisation of drugs in general??

That we should do whatever we want and that we want to recognize that actions have consequences. Society's definitions are often arbitrary ; marijuana is outlawed in canada under the food and drug act that also declared margarine a controlled substance. I'm all for decriminalizing everything; conviction makes convicts.

Right On!

Two, apologies for dropping out of the dialogue for so long. A case of too many commitments at the moment. Rest assured that I am thinking hard, musing over your challenge to my preconceptions, and I will be back in your midst soon. Enjoy the rest while you can!

Yup! I'm with you on that one dude!. Most of drug related crime stems from the fact that drugs are agains the law rather than people on drugs committing crimes. How many people have ever smoked a doobie and then gone out for a fight!......None that I know. Still the governments of this world all tend to suck (but not inhale)when it comes to this dugs thing. what is the solution??

I guess that depends on what the problem is. The liabilities of government go far beyond arbitrary substance abuse laws. My personal soloution is to 'do what I want'. I want to recognize that actions have consequences, so I weigh one against the other when plotting those actions (mostly).

I was just thinking as I drove home from work today at 6AM that anyone that's experienced melancholy has experienced a predestined life. To me, melancholy is the feeling you get when you see the rules by which life works, realise that you're at the Dubbo end of it and are powerless to change things until they change themselves. I wasn't feeling melancholy at the time, but, as I thought about it, I realised that when you think about mel.., you become mel...

Just an observation I thought worthy of note.

Apologies for dropping out of the conversation for so long. I have had to devote more time to work and family and other projects this last week.

For now, I would just like to pick up with this preferred reference frame concept again. First, my gut feeling is that there is nothing 'outside' of the universe which determines a fixed scale to space and time. I am a Machian in that I believe that our experience of inertia is a function of the distribution of mass throughout the whole universe. This mass distribution effectively defines a cosmological reference frame, and, in a sense, an absolute now.

You are saying that we can divide four-dimensional spacetime up by taking three-dimensional sections in any abitrary way. You believe there is no distinction to be made between any one reference frame and any other. But there is just one frame which is special above all others, and which would uniquely appear as special to observers in all frames. If an observer were able to measure the total kinetic of the universe in every conceivable frame of reference, this special frame would be the frame of reference in which the energy was lowest (in which the sums of all the masses X velocity squared was a minimum). All observers would be in agreement. This is my preferred reference frame, and because all observers agree, whatever their relative motion, I hold it to be an absolute reference frame providing an absolute now.

I too think we are ready for an enlarged cosmology. We have no coherent cosmological mythology to offer our children. We do not even attempt to offer them a philosophical map to help them find their way. No wonder so many end up lost.

Interesting observation Haze. I think I agree. Melancholy would seem to overcome us when we feel that we are at the mercy of events rather than the director. Conversely, euphoria is what we experience when we feel that we are in control of events, dictating the course of our lives rather than succumbing to the contingent winds of circumstance.

PS You have a great name too. Names are important.

I’m going to jump in at this late stage and stick my hermetic fly in your ointment. It would appear that you have a bit of a downer on melancholy feelings, which is of course entirely your prerogative. But my point is this (and I think Serendipity knows what’s coming next): I think you need to have these feelings of melancholia to qualify your feelings of happiness / euphoria / etc.

Take a person blind from birth as your analogy, if you like. Try explaining to them that that beyond the realms of their noses, ears and hands lies something other than the blackness. Imagine yourself explaining to them what a red rose looks like, or sunset over the Mam Tor, or the look on Samuel Kuffour’s face when Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored. Imagine trying to explain the difference between mauve, maroon and purple to that person. You can’t do it because they have no frame of reference.

And that’s how I think it is with moods. You appreciate happiness more when you’ve had the pain, and once you’ve understood true happiness your pain is brought into sharp relief. And just for the record, I think that’s the way all things are. I think it’s a yin / yang thing.


And will I’m here, I’m going to throw my theological spanner into your scientific works! I have amongst my collection of learned books and back issues of FHM a book called ‘The Bible Code’ by Michael Drosnin. For those of you that are unfamiliar with it, let me briefly precee it.

You know those popular word search grids, where you take a grid of, say, 50 rows of 50 letters and try and find the words hidden in it? Like, for example, names of cities or composers or whatever. Well, imagine the bible in its original Hebrew form being written out like that with however many rows there would be of fifty letters per row.

Now, the odds are that in that grid you would find unintentional complete words, reading maybe down, or diagonally, or maybe on every other line. It would happen on any large document, statistically speaking. Now what would raise some eyebrows is if you could isolate one area of your gigantic word search, and find two or three words all related to each other - for example, Clancy, Grisham and King. Again, statistically speaking, it’s possible but not overly probable that these word formations would exist.

Now, imagine you have, in your one little section that’s fifty letters wide, the following words and phrases: ‘Yitzhak Rabin’; ‘ Name of assassin who will assassinate’; ‘Rabin assassination’; ‘Name of assassin’; ‘Amir’; ‘Tel Aviv’; ‘in 5756 / 1995-96’. The odds of these phrases appearing together in one little section start to look seriously high.

And yet all of these phrases do appear together in one little section of the Bible when written out in its original Hebrew as a letter grid as explained above.

On November 4, 1995, a man named Amir shot and killed the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the back, in Tel Aviv.

The key to working out the bible code is knowing how wide to make your grid; in other words, how many letters go in a row before starting a new one. Obviously a computer – a good one – is needed to do this, because otherwise you’ll have to rewrite the grid as many times as there are letters in the Bible. But a computer can do this quickly, and let you know when it finds something. And then when it’s found your key word, it can display the area immediately around it. So when the author searched, with hindsight, for the name Amir – Rabin’s killer – the computer displayed it in another grid, with the date and the phrases, ‘assassin who will assassinate’, ‘He struck, he killed the Prime Minister’ and ‘his killer, one of his people, the one who got close’. Your statistical odds are starting to soar at this point – odds of one in ten million are quoted*.

The phrases ‘Fire on January 18th, 1991’, ‘missile’, Saddam’, ‘Hussein picked a day’, ‘war’ and ‘enemy’ all appear together in similar fashion.

As do ‘economical collapse’, ‘stocks’, ‘depression’, and ‘1929’.

As do ‘Shoemaker-levy’, ‘will pound Jupiter’, and ‘July 16, 1994’.

As do ‘Shakespeare’, ‘presented on stage’, ‘MacBeth’ and ‘Hamlet’.

‘Wright Brothers’ and ‘airplane’ appear together, as does ‘Hitler’, ‘evil man’, ‘nazi and enemy’ and ‘slaughter’, and so do ‘Edison’, ‘Electricity’ and ‘Lightbulb’. Someone was a fan of Einstein, because in the area around his name appears ‘science’, ‘they prophesised a brainy person’, a new and excellent understanding’ and ‘he overturned present reality’.

From my page you can access an entry of mine simply entitled Alchemy. In it I make mention of the fact that Isaac Newton saw his work as a means of explaining God’s work. The majority of his prodigious literary output was concerned with topics such as alchemy, ground plans for Solomon’s temple, and the search for a code that he thought existed in the Bible but was never able to find. A search for the name of Newton in the bible shows two items in close proximity – ‘gravity’ and ‘bible code’.

By this time in Drosnin’s 200+ page book, you’ve got to page 33 – all grids are lovingly reproduced for readers to check themselves.

* See Equidistant Letter Spacing In The Book of Genesis, an experiment by Eli Rips and Doron Witztum, published in Nature magazine. The computer program and Hebrew Bible grid is available for any sceptics who wish to check the results, or the program itself.

I think what I’m saying here is that God – and I’m not saying which god or who’s god – was not playing dice at all. Everything that was and is from the time of the bible’s inception appears to be encoded – it’s just a case of looking for it, and the PC is the perfect tool. The only regret is that you need some firmware known as Hindsight to run to reveal the Bible code in its true clarity.